Jump to content
Vedar

Firestorm Armada 3.0 headed our way?

Recommended Posts

Good question :)

My last 40k game was a tournament scenario, mixing Kill points, fixed objectives (classic missions) and random objectives (maelstrom).

So there were many options to play and win the game, it was interesting.

You have the two first thing in FA, kill points and classic objectives, so as i say maybe something could be done with scenarios.

But i don't want strategy only, i also want fun.

So making the game more quick will allow to play bigger game with bigger ships (bigger fun!) and spend more time thinking how to achieve objective.

And i don't want to be rude, but you say all fleets are balanced around fixed fore weapons.

But the stats of the warlog show that the game isn't balanced and you should apologie to Sorylians players (kidding) :P

Have you looked into this?

http://shop.spartangames.co.uk/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=FAEX04

I'm not a Sorylian apologist. They are not a Fixed Fore faction(though they have some FF, like Terrans and Relthoza). They are Broadside centric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as there's no combining and pivoting like halo, while its good for that system, I certainly would not want that for firestorm, personally I don't see anything wrong with movement, using the 45 template is far quicker than all the templates you need for dystopian wars, the movement of smalls could be made quicker, but generally people move one then align the rest next to it anyway :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chess vs. Tabletop wargames is a heated discussion, best left for other times. Though I've played around with the idea of applying dice to chess combat for fun :P.

 

In my opinion, what makes tabletop wargames such a fantastic industry is that every company does things different to solve the same problem: How do you move models on a board and interact with them in a way that is fun, exciting, strategic and fun. Yes, fun is put in their twice on purpose ;). For me, I am used to games that take a long time to play (Talisman, Battletech, fourty kay etc.) so having a match take 3-4 hours is par for the course to me. I can sympathize with people who want a quicker game but ultimately it's personal taste on what is better and what isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont think you will convince many if you want to simplyfi the rules just to get more models on the table.

i fear there is no Magic fix to not lose on strategic gamig and Speed up things, moving is a big part of FSA Strategy.

just to move in range and throwing a fixed dice Count all the time is not interresting, yeah you will do it with 8 Battelships but it will be extremly bland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont think you will convince many if you want to simplyfi the rules just to get more models on the table.

i fear there is no Magic fix to not lose on strategic gamig and Speed up things, moving is a big part of FSA Strategy.

just to move in range and throwing a fixed dice Count all the time is not interresting, yeah you will do it with 8 Battelships but it will be extremly bland.

 

Imagine in my system dindrenzi would have 6 MV and 1 TL, they could only turn 45° per turn... not so easy to get a good shoot every turn.

Who talk about fixed dice? combine is different but you still loose firepower from HP.

 

And no one want to put more models on the table ? I think spartan would like everybody to buy more models to play bigger games...

 

Zelord scenario wise 2.0 Firestorm I agree is weak. I really want to see the scenarios all redone so its based on your actions more than how lucky you are with dice.

Also the 45 degree turning and combining are in Taskforce so sounds like that will be right up your alley.

 

Yes Taskforce will be good for me, only if they do stats for all models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zelord scenario wise 2.0 Firestorm I agree is weak. I really want to see the scenarios all redone so its based on your actions more than how lucky you are with dice.

Also the 45 degree turning and combining are in Taskforce so sounds like that will be right up your alley.

 

Agreed - 3.0 can be made to stand out massively with some excellent scenarios - and possibly more than 6 too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you're right, you opened my mind!

 

Why everybody doesn't see that my comparison to chess was caricatural and that i know the differences with FSA????

 

No offense was intended.  I apologize if my tone was inappropriate (which it sounds like it was, based on your reaction).  All I meant to convey was my belief that Chess is not the epitome of strategic gaming that some believe it is, while also pointing out that there is room for board games set in the Firestorm universe, as long as they don't try to recreate the feel of a miniatures game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quality over quantity for me sry, 1000 pkt on a 4x6 Table can get really crowded allready with this size of Models. A bigger Table and you will get a bad Reputation for needing a really big Table in this Tabletop game  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense was intended.  I apologize if my tone was inappropriate (which it sounds like it was, based on your reaction).  All I meant to convey was my belief that Chess is not the epitome of strategic gaming that some believe it is, while also pointing out that there is room for board games set in the Firestorm universe, as long as they don't try to recreate the feel of a miniatures game.

 

I probably was over reacting...

My point was that a game could be simplified and still strategic.

 

Why making simple rules for little game and more complex for bigger ones.

It could be simple rules for massive games ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the afternoon is around 4 hours of play.

 

But you're missing the point, stop arguing about chess, and my time of play etc...

 

Focus on that, I would like the game to be more about the strategy of my armada to achieve my objectives than time consuming movement and calculations.

This is my point of view.

 

love.

 

Sorry but you're the one who talked about chess and time of play, not me ;)

 

I get your point but again, if movement isn't strategy for you, what it is? What do you call "strategy"? Can you give me concrete example because I don't really see what you're talking about. And how would you bring strategy to a game if you take off that crucial movement step? To achieve your objectives (capturing a station, crossing the table, assaulting a planet, killing the admiral vessel, ...), you have to move. FA is intrinsically a movement game.

 

I suggest you to try Firestorm Taskforce but you have to be realistic: big games of FA are and will be time consuming, with a big focus on the movement phase because it's the core of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but you're the one who talked about chess and time of play, not me ;)

 

I get your point but again, if movement isn't strategy for you, what it is? What do you call "strategy"? Can you give me concrete example because I don't really see what you're talking about. And how would you bring strategy to a game if you take off that crucial movement step? To achieve your objectives (capturing a station, crossing the table, assaulting a planet, killing the admiral vessel, ...), you have to move. FA is intrinsically a movement game.

 

I suggest you to try Firestorm Taskforce but you have to be realistic: big games of FA are and will be time consuming, with a big focus on the movement phase because it's the core of the game.

 

You're pushing things too far, i've never said take off the movement phase or the movement phase isn't strategy.

Here is your exemple, warhammer 40k, where movement is easy, just mesure and move, no turning etc...

So it's possible to have a game with simple movement and strategy.

I don't say you have to take off turning, but you could find a way more easy and less time consuming.

 

Strategy for me is what ship go where, to do something, how they will survive and destroy ennemies in the process.

So the strategy is to bring the good escadron against the good ennemy escadron, to use terrain at advantage.

And you can do that without a system that make you mesure every inch of movement.

 

And the shooting phase, priority target, deployment etc....

 

So if for you FSA is only a movement game, you're missing something and should play a racing game.

The mechanic is the heritage of Distopian wars, it could be rethink.

Fore me, the core mecanic that bring fun is the exploding 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly; you can't compare the “size” of different games by comparing the points values involved.

Claiming that a certain company “X” game is bigger than a certain company “Y” game because the first one is a “2000 points” game and the second one is only a “1000 points" game is pure nonsense.

 

Secondly; in a table top space combat game tactics is all about manoeuvring, so if you simplify the movement phase you're economizing on the tactical aspect of the game.

 

Lastly; a very simple movement system can be adequate to simulate the tactical movement of soldiers and tanks on a tabletop because momentum isn't a big factor in that environment, in space, however, momentum is everything, and by ignoring it on the space tabletop you're killing suspension of disbelief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly; you can't compare the “size” of different games by comparing the points values involved.

Claiming that a certain company “X” game is bigger than a certain company “Y” game because the first one is a “2000 points” game and the second one is only a “1000 points" game is pure nonsense.

 

Secondly; in a table top space combat game tactics is all about manoeuvring, so if you simplify the movement phase you're economizing on the tactical aspect of the game.

 

Lastly; a very simple movement system can be adequate to simulate the tactical movement of soldiers and tanks on a tabletop because momentum isn't a big factor in that environment, in space, however, momentum is everything, and by ignoring it on the space tabletop you're killing suspension of disbelief.

 

first : right, i don't compare them, it was just an indication. (if i would say i could run a 40k game in time someone could ask me what game size...)

 

Second : i agree with you for a fighters combat like Xwing, in firestorm Armada i want to focus on the armada wich is in the name... and i still want movement phase and terrain.

 

last : the simplification i suggest still have a turn limit, so the momentum is not ignored.

 

I'm sorry my english is so bad because people seem to understand what i haven't say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, Movement in FSA is great for giant capitol ships maneuvering in space. My only beef is with the standard template being a bulky thing that tends to get blocked/hampered by anything and everything around it.

In a game like this (giant spacefaring capitol ships) precise movement is and IMO should be a critical skill for maximizing your ship's potential in combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 i agree with you for a fighters combat like Xwing, in firestorm Armada i want to focus on the armada wich is in the name... and i still want movement phase and terrain.

 

In space “ships” move exactly the same as “fighters” do…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In space “ships” move exactly the same as “fighters” do…

 

That's why FSA is a bad spaceship simulator.

 

Here i speak about game design.

I don't understand why rules should be simple when you play a little force and more complexe for a big armada, the playing time grew exponentialy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here i speak about game design.

I don't understand why rules should be simple when you play a little force and more complexe for a big armada, the playing time grew exponentialy.

 

I think that in this case its not that the rules are simple for small-size game and complex for the big-size game, because both taskforce and firestorm can be played with small or large fleets. The difference between the systems are mainly design, taskforce i designed to be fast to play, and you achieve the fastest play time with simple rules and small games, that why its marketed as a small sized game. Armada has a more varied focus, and is more complex at the cost of longer playtime. The games simply value different values differently. 

The solution seems simple though, just play large games of taskforce and you can have everything you want, while the armada can keep the design focus it already has. Win win :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why FSA is a bad spaceship simulator.

 

Here i speak about game design.

I don't understand why rules should be simple when you play a little force and more complexe for a big armada, the playing time grew exponentialy.

 

 

Firestorm Armada 2.0 clearly wasn't designed to enable 30 minute games, and why should it be?

 

Who says a game of Firestorm Armada, or any other table topping game for that matter,  has to be playable within a short amount of time?

 

If you want to be able to deploy vast fleets, and still want to be able to finish a game within two hours time, Firestorm Armada 2.0 clearly isn't the game for you.

 

And any game that would be able to accomplish that most probably wouldn't be a game for me...

 

This isn't about Firestorm Armada being a bad spaceship simulator, this is about the game not being suitable for your personal needs.

 

The new Firestorm:Taskforce will probably suit you better  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that sometimes it's just who you play with. I've seen players take forever with their turns to line up the perfect shot and others where players can get perfect placement on the fly.

Often this has to do with how often a game is played. If you are a once a month FSA player, you'll likely have a harder time with movement and linking than someone that plays multiple times a week.

As for linking and Movement solutions to streamline, I think there are somethings to make it easy for the slower player.

In short, I think new movement templates are in order and some simple calculating reference page for linking would smooth a lot of the issues new players have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to seeing these taskforce rules. I'm slightly concerned that it's over correcting and dumbing the rules down too much. The only element I really have a problem with is movement. And while I think the game needs a bit of speeding up, just to the point that large games don't take all day, I think 30 minutes is too short to have real tactical depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're getting bit too hung up on the movement phase. The goal of the movement phase is to move model from A to B. Everything that happens between it is busywork, that's necessary, but that's it, there's no reason to romanticise busywork.

 

Now, obviously rules need to have some degree of relatability, just picking model up and placing down is no fun, but by the same token, meticulous measuring of every inch is equally counter-productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.